Kansas vs. Darwin

"Kansas vs. Darwin" is a documentary covering the debates in Kansas between intelligent design and evolution, and which should be taught in Kansas schools. The film is thorough in covering the proceedings and interviewing more or less everyone involved.

The film, which I saw during a "Darwin Day 2009" presentation, is amazing in that it does a great job remaining neutral. I personally thought it slightly favored the evolution believers, particularly Jack Krebs of the Kansas Citizens for Science, but this may simply be because I agree with them and found many of the intelligent design arguments to be -- frankly -- stupid. While some of the intelligent design points were decent, they were few and far between.

Another strength of this film was its ability to get the people to open up on camera for the public. One of the school board members told of her past associations with drugs and a more wild lifestyle, which seems politically foolish to do when you're on the board. Another man told of his conversion from an atheist to a Christian. I found these personal stories very moving, even if they came from the side I didn't generally agree with.

I think this film has great value for anyone interested in evolution, intelligent design or public policy. Very little is discussed as far as the facts of evolution or intelligent design, as the film is not trying to persuade one way or the other. So it might help entering the film with a foundational knowledge of both positions. But it does a great job explaining where everyone stands and why. Excellent, excellent coverage of a modern American historical event.

This is a slick, witty documentary on the Kansas Board of Education's 2005 vote on whether or not to allow intelligent design theories to be taught in the state's public schools alongside theories of evolution. The filmmakers do a great job of neatly presenting the main arguments and key players on both sides, and nicely deflate the tension by allowing humor to the come to the fore. Both sides are shown as intelligent, with well-formulated arguments, and yet also prove to be obstinate, self-deluding and prone to bullying and name-calling. It's informative, and in a way also quite depressing, becoming a sad, mocking document of this seemingly interminable discussion. Given the nature of the format, which is a basically a condensed record and play-by-play analysis of a pseudo-courtroom debate, the doc can be a bit talk-heavy and lag in places. Its impact may also be diminished by the Kansas BoE's 2007 decision to overturn the verdict. It is ripe for creating post-screening discussion.